ERIC ED460307: Selecting the Right Tool: A Compendium of Alcohol and Other Drug Assessment and Evaluation Instruments for Use in Higher Education.

20 Pages·1997·0.26 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 460 307
CG 029 097
AUTHOR
Presley, Cheryl; Austin, S. Bryn; Jacobs, Judith
Selecting the Right Tool: A Compendium of Alcohol and Other
TITLE
Drug Assessment and Evaluation Instruments for Use in Higher
Education.
INSTITUTION
Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug
Prevention, Newton, MA.
SPONS AGENCY
Department of Education, Washington, DC.
PUB DATE
1997-00-00
NOTE
19p.
CONTRACT
SS95013001
AVAILABLE FROM
Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug
Prevention, Education Development Center, Inc., 55 Chapel
St., Newton, MA 02458-1060; Tel: [phone] (Toll Free);
Fax [phone]; e-mail: HigherEdCtr@edc:org; Web site:
http://www.edc.org/hec
PUB TYPE
Guides
Non-Classroom (055)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
College Students; *Drinking; Evaluation Methods; Higher
Education; *Measurement Techniques; *Prevention; Program
Evaluation; *Substance Abuse
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this compendium is to assist administrators,
staff, evaluators, and alcohol and other drug (ADD) prevention specialists in
identifying and selecting feasible, informative, and appropriate evaluation
instruments to assess AOD use and monitor program effectiveness on campus.
The use of qualitative methods in the evaluation of grant-funded projects is
discussed. Section 1,
"Choosing the Right Instrument," presents the primary
issues that must be considered when choosing an instrument, which range from
format and feasibility to technical concerns about the quality of the
measure. Section 2,
"A Compendium of Measures," has short descriptions of
seven instruments selected by a panel of experts in AOD prevention. These
tools are among the best in the field and are designed to cover a variety of
areas including frequency and amount of AOD use, consequences of AOD use,
student perceptions of AOD use on campus, fraternity and sorority AOD
environment, faculty and staff perceptions of AOD use, and community
coalition involvement in prevention efforts. Section 3, "Annotated Evaluation
Bibliography," covers resources on research design, statistical analysis,
evaluation, and other instruments.
(EMK)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
http://www.edc.org/hec/pubs/selecting-right-tool.txt
Selecting the Right Tool
A Compendium of Alcohol and Other Drug Assessment
and Evaluation Instruments for Use in Higher Education
Cheryl Presley/S. Bryn Austin/Judith Jacobs
This article discusses the use of qualitative methods in the evaluation of
grant-funded projects.
CONTENTS
Preface
Introduction
Section 1: Choosing the Right Instrument
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
Section 2: A Compendium of Measures
CENTER (ERIC)
Alcohol and Other Drug Surveys
0 This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
Environmental Assessment
originating it.
Fraternity and Sorority Assessment
0 Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction quality.
Other Instruments
Points of view or opinions stated in this docu-
ment do not necessarily represent official
Section 3: Annotated Evaluation Bibliography
OERI position or policy.
PREFACE
The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention was
established by the U.S. Department of Education in 1993 to assist
institutions of higher education in developing and carrying out alcohol and
other drug (AOD) prevention programs that will promote campus and community
safety and help nurture students' academic and social development.
To accomplish this mission, the Center seeks to increase the capacity of
postsecondary schools to develop, implement, and evaluate programs and
policies that are built around environmental management strategies.
Environmental management means moving beyond general awareness and other
education programs to identify and change those factors in the physical,
social, legal, and economic environment that promote or abet alcohol and
other drug problems.
Clearly, stemming the use of alcohol and other drugs is not something that
college administrators alone can achieve. Top administrators, especially
presidents, must exercise leadership, but their success will depend
ultimately on their ability to build a strong coalition of both on-campus
and community interests. The better AOD prevention programs are campuswide
efforts that involve as many parts of the college as possible, including
students, staff, and faculty. For this reason, the Center emphasizes
team-focused training and technical assistance work.
Building coalitions with local community leaders is also key. College
campuses do not exist in isolation. AOD prevention planners need to
collaborate with local leaders to limit student access to alcohol, prevent
intoxication, and support the efforts of local law enforcement. The Center
therefore seeks to motivate and train academic leaders to work with local
community representatives, while also joining with national organizations
that urge local coalitions to increase their outreach to academic
institutions.
This publication represents one piece in a comprehensive approach to AOD
2
AVAILABLE
BEST COPY
2/18/99 10:22 AM
1 of 18
http://www.edc.org/hec/pubs/selecting-right-tool.txt
prevention at institutions of higher education. The concepts and approaches
it describes should be viewed in the broader context of prevention theory
and the approaches affirmed by the U.S. Department of Education and
promoted by the Center in its training, technical assistance, publication,
and evaluation activities.
For information on Center services, please contact:
The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention
Education Development Center, Inc.
55 Chapel Street
Newton, MA 02458-1060
[phone]
Tel.:
[phone]
Fax:
Website: http://www.edc.org/hec/
E-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this compendium is to assist administrators, staff, evaluators,
and AOD prevention specialists in identifying and selecting feasible,
informative, and appropriate evaluation instruments to assess AOD use and
monitor program effectiveness on campus.
Since passage of the federal Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986,
colleges and universities have been required to maintain alcohol and other
drug (PLOD) prevention programs and policies and to conduct biennial reviews
of their effectiveness. Partly in response to the federal mandate,
institutions of higher education across the country have launched a myriad
of ambitious programs and policy changes. Increasingly, school officials
have begun to devote a significant amount of staff time and resources to
systematic, campus-based assessment of AOD use at their individual
institutions. They recognize that the available national data on college
AOD use, while informative, are not alone a sufficient basis on which to
make programming decisions.
Assessing AOD use and measuring the effects of prevention efforts can be a
daunting task, especially when there are a number of programs on campus
that promote prevention on multiple levels. A single institution may have
in place AOD prevention programs designed to address individual student
behavior, interpersonal behavior, perceptions of social norms,
institutional change, and community-level change. High demands on resources
and staff time also pose challenges to evaluation work. It may be
unrealistic to expect every campus to conduct a rigorous, experimental
evaluation of its programming and policies. But even so, all schools need
to use key indicators to monitor progress and suggest needed modifications.
This document will help in either case.
Often the most basic piece of information collected in campus assessments
is the prevalence of AOD use. The proportion of students drinking alcohol
or using other drugs, the frequency of use, and the amount of use are all
critical to understanding the AOD use patterns at a college or university
and to monitoring program impact. But there are many other factors that
evaluations can assess to help improve understanding of the ADD climate on
campus. Selecting the right data collection instruments is a vital
component of evaluation. This compendium covers the important issues to
consider when making those selections and identifies the leading
instruments used in the postsecondary AOD prevention field. The instruments
included in this compendium not only assess student AOD use but also cover
consequences of AOD use; student, staff and faculty perceptions of AOD use;
environmental factors that encourage use (for instance, tailgate parties)
or discourage use (such as substance-free housing); and other issues
related to the college or university AOD climate.
The chief criteria for inclusion of the instruments in this compendium are
3
2/18/99 10:22 AM
2 of 18
http://www.edc.org/hec/pubs/selecting-right-tool.txt
that they are
* designed specifically for a postsecondary student population or
environment
* well-tested, valid (a term discussed in section 1 meaning that the
instrument actually measures what it purports to measure), and
reliable (meaning that the instrument provides consistent measurements
over time)
* intended for general survey research and not for the diagnosis of
alcoholism or alcohol abuse problems in individuals
Section 1 of the compendium presents the primary issues that must be
considered when choosing an instrument, which range from format and
feasibility to technical concerns about the quality of the measure.
Section 2 has short descriptions of seven instruments selected by a panel
of experts in AOD prevention. These tools are among the best available in
the field and are designed to cover a variety of areas relevant to campus
AOD prevention, including assessment of
* frequency and amount of ADD use
* consequences of AOD use
* student perceptions of AOD use on campus
* fraternity and sorority AOD environment
* faculty and staff perceptions of AOD use
* community coalition involvement in prevention efforts
Section 3 contains an annotated bibliography of resources on research
design, statistical analysis, other aspects of evaluation, and additional
instruments not included in this compendium.
While informed and careful instrument selection is central to quality
evaluation, it is only one piece of a comprehensive.evaluation strategy. It
is hoped that the information included in this compendium will serve as a
valuable resource for administrators, staff, evaluators, and prevention
specialists as they develop their evaluation plans and work to increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of prevention programming and policy on
America's college and university campuses.
SECTION 1: CHOOSING THE RIGHT INSTRUMENT
Key Features of Instruments
* Instruments vary a great deal, not only in terms of the information
they assess but also in the way they assess it and how well they do
so. Within the AOD prevention field, instruments have been designed to
collect data on a range of factors, from student ADD use patterns to
perceptions of campus norms to environmental conditions that promote
or deter AOD use. Before choosing an instrument it is important to
determine what kind of data is needed. If it has not been clearly
established which questions about AOD use on campus are the most
pressing, there is a risk of selecting an instrument that focuses on
irrelevant information or that omits important data. In section 2 of
this compendium, the domain, or range of factors covered by an
instrument, is described in the summaries under Application and
Outcomes.
* A second consideration in selecting an instrument is the target
population. Instruments are designed with a particular group of people
in mind. For instance, a measure intended for adults may be too
difficult for children to understand. Also, a measure surveying
college students about drinking on campus would not be appropriate for
young adults in the same age range if they were not attending a
4
2/18/99 10:22 AM
3 of 18
http://www.edc.org/hec/pubs/selecting-right-tool.txt
college or university. All the instruments presented in this
compendium are appropriate for the college community, but the intended
respondents may be students, faculty and staff, or another subgroup on
campus, depending on the measure. In section 2, the target population
is described under Informants.
* A third consideration is the format of the instrument. Many use the
self-report, forced-choice format typical of standardized tests such
as the SAT. Others are self-report but use open-ended questions to
allow respondents more freedom in answering. Still others use an
interview format, in which a trained staff person conducts a
semistructured interview with a respondent or a group of respondents
and records their comments. A self-report, forced-choice format is the
most feasible for surveying a large number of people but is more
restricted than the other formats in the detail of information that
can be gathered. The interview format tends to be more labor intensive
for staff compared with other survey techniques, but it also has the
potential to collect more detailed and complex information from
respondents. Format and length determine the time and effort required
of respondents and may limit the settings in which an instrument can
be administered. For instance, if students are to be surveyed during
class time set aside by a cooperating professor, then a 20-minute,
forced-choice questionnaire may be most feasible. Information about
the format of the instruments is detailed in section 2 under Format
and Administration.
* A fourth and arguably the most important consideration is the
technical quality of instruments. Experts in evaluation refer to
technical quality as the validity and reliability of an instrument.
Validity is an indication of an instrument's ability to measure what
it is intended to measure. Reliability indicates the consistency with
which the instrument provides those measurements. Consider, for
example., a ruler, an everyday type of measuring instrument. If a ruler
has high validity, then we know that the space between lines marking
an inch truly is one inch. If the ruler has high reliability, it will
measure one inch as the same amount of distance every time we use the
ruler.
Determining validity and reliability is essential to establishing the
technical quality of an instrument and ultimately to producing credible
evaluation results. Since validity and reliability testing is time
consuming, the instrument selection process should always include a careful
review of existing instruments that have been fully tested. Section 2 of
this compendium includes information on the validity and reliability of
each of the featured instruments. Because an understanding of these
concepts is so critical to well-informed instrument selection, they are
described in greater detail below.
Validity
There are three types of validity used in the field: content validity,
construct validity, and predictive validity. In general, validity is not an
all-or-nothing characteristic; rather, it is described in degrees from low
to high. The more evidence gathered through multiple studies that shows
that an instrument performs well in terms of the three types of validity,
the more confidence evaluators can have in the measure and, most important,
in the study results.
Content Validity.
included
called items
Content validity refers to whether the questions
in an instrument cover the whole domain of factors it is intended to
address. This form of validity is often determined by agreement among
experts. For example, an instrument intended to measure patterns of alcohol
use on a college campus would need to include items covering at least three
areas: the proportion of students who drink, how frequently they drink, and
how much they drink. If a measure addressed only one of these aspects of
5
2/18/99 10:22 AM
4 of 18
http://www.edc.org/hec/pubs/selecting-right-tool.txt
college student alcohol consumption, experts would consider it to have poor
content validity.
Construct Validity.
Construct validity refers to the extent to which an instrument successfully
measures a theoretical concept-called a construct-such as anxiety, peer
pressure, or perceptions of drinking norms. Scores from one instrument can
be compared with scores from others that are intended to measure the same
construct to assess whether the instruments perform comparably. Moderate or
high correlation between instruments designed to measure the same construct
suggests that the instruments are performing as intended.
Predictive Validity.
Predictive validity indicates an instrument's ability to provide meaningful
patterns of results. For instance, student performance on the SAT is used
by admissions committees to predict academic performance in college. How
well SAT scores actually do predict success in college would be an
indication of the SAT's level of predictive validity. Predictive validity
is also used to refer to an instrument's ability to discriminate among
groups of respondents who would be expected to score differently on a
particular measure. For example, a researcher could conduct interviews with
students about their alcohol consumption and then divide them into two
groups, one made up of heavy drinkers and the other of light drinkers. If
the researcher then had the students complete a questionnaire on AOD use,
the expectation would be that the heavy drinkers would score differently on
the instrument than light drinkers. If the questionnaire could not
discriminate between the two groups, it would be considered to have low
predictive validity.
Reliability
Reliability, which refers to a measure's consistency, can be divided into
three main types: test-retest reliability, alternate forms reliability, and
internal consistency.
Test-Retest Reliability.
An instrument's ability to measure a construct the same way at repeated
testing times is referred to as its test-retest reliability. To assess this
type of reliability, an instrument may be administered twice to a group of
people. If the time in between testing is not too long and if the construct
being measured is relatively stable, the scores at the first test would be
expected to be very similar to the scores at the second test. For instance,
a group of students could be surveyed about their AOD use over the past
year and surveyed again two weeks later. Their reports of AOD use over the
past year should not have changed much over the two weeks, so if an
instrument has a high test-retest reliability, each student's score on the
first test should highly correlate with his or her score on the second
test.
The magnitude of the test-retest correlation can be represented by a number
ranging from 0 to 1, where 1 indicates perfect correlation and 0 represents
no correlation. In the context of test-retest reliability, a correlation of
.85 or above is generally considered high.
Alternate Forms Reliability.
Reliability can also be established if two alternate forms of the
instrument produce highly correlated scores when administered to the same
group of people. The alternate forms of the instrument must be comparable,
that is they must include the same types of questions in the same format.
Evaluators may want to use more than one version of a questionnaire in a
situation, for instance, where surveys are repeated in a short time period,
raising concern that respondents' memory of their answers may influence
subsequent responses.
Internal Consistency.
Internal consistency is described by the correlations among items within an
6
2/18/99 10:22 AM
5 of 18
http://www.edc.org/hec/pubs/selecting-right-tool.txt
instrument. If an instrument measures a single construct, all the items
would be expected to be highly correlated. Likewise, if an instrument is
really measuring two related but distinct constructs, the items might
cluster into two groups, where those relating to one construct correlate
highly with each other but less so with items in the other group and vice
versa. For instance, if an instrument included questions about both binge
drinking and consumption of alcohol at meals, scores on all the items about
binge drinking would be expected to be highly correlated with each other
but perhaps only moderately correlated with items on drinking at meals.
Internal consistency is frequently represented by a statistic called
Cronbach's alpha, which also can range from 0 to 1. Cronbach's alpha above
.85 is considered high but a value above .70 usually is considered an
indication of adequate internal consistency. Another number used to
represent internal consistency is the item-to-total correlation, which
between the score
indicates the correlation again, ranging from 0 to 1
on any one item and the total score on the test as a whole. Generally,
scores for each item should fall between .3 and .7.
SECTION 2: A COMPENDIUM OF MEASURES
Alcohol and Other Drug Surveys
Core Alcohol and Drug Survey
Key Contact:
Core Institute
Student Health Programs
Kesnar Hall MC 6802
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901
[phone]
Phone:
Website: http://www.siu.edu/-coreinst/
Application and Outcomes:
The Core Alcohol and Drug Survey was developed in 1989 to assess the
nature, scope, and consequences of alcohol and other drug use on college
campuses. This survey was expanded in 1994 to include assessment of
students' perceptions and beliefs about alcohol and other drug (AOD) use
and AOD-related sexual behavior and violence.
For each behavior measured, an item score can be obtained. Quantity and
frequency of use is measured by annual prevalence of use for all drugs and
alcohol, 30-day use for all drugs and alcohol, average number of drinks per
week, binge drinking within the last two weeks, and change in drinking and
drug use in the past 12 months. Problem-related questions measure 19
consequences of drinking and drug use by frequency of occurrence. Another
set of questions measures AOD-related incidents of violence. Several items
also measure perception of risk, perception of others' use, perceptions of
others' feelings regarding use, and perception of campus environment.
Social beliefs about the effects of alcohol are measured by 14 items using
a forced-choice yes/no format. There are questions that assess other campus
variables, such as the extent of participation in campus activities,
frequency of refusal behavior, and interference from others' drinking in a
student's life on or around campus.
Informants:
Postsecondary student population
Format and administration:
The long-form version of the self-report Core Alcohol and Drug Survey
Includes 39 questions on use and consequences, as well as demographics. The
short-form version included 23 questions. Individual questions have between
2 and 19 response options. The most common methods of administration are to
7
2/18/99 11:38 AM
6 of 18
http://www.ecle.org/hec/pubs/selecting-right-tool.txt
mail surveys to a randomly selected subset of students or to administer
surveys in randomly selected classrooms. Each method is discussed in the
Core Survey User's Manual, which is distributed upon purchase of the
instrument. Colleges can have the results of the survey analyzed by the
Core Institute. The long form of the survey takes from 20 to 35 minutes for
respondents to complete.
Technical Assistance:
Technical assistance for those administering the Core Alcohol and Drug
Survey is available from the Core Institute through a 15-minute video ($25)
that describes how to conduct the survey; through the Core Institute's
Website (http://www.siu.edu/departments/coreinst/public_html/index.html);or
via telephone.
Costs:
The Core Alcohol and Drug Survey is distributed from and analyzed by the
Core Institute. The costs for obtaining the long form of the survey and
having the results compiled and analyzed are as follows:
Purchase of each survey copy: $ 0.22
Scanning of each returned survey: $ 0.17
Executive Summary:$20.00
Abbreviated Analysis:$45.00
Disk with Raw Data:$13.00
Use in Evaluation:
The Core Alcohol and Drug Survey is one of the most rigorously developed
survey instruments for postsecondary populations. Its original intent was
to assess only the frequency and consequences of AOD use. After hundreds of
two- and four-year institutions of higher education had used the Core
Survey, many requests were received to expand the content of the survey to
include other aspects of campus life related to substance issues.
Consequently, the survey was expanded to include questions on sexuality,
campus violence, institutional climate, perceptions of AOD use, and
extracurricular activity involvement. Development of both the original and
expanded Core Survey followed strict American Psychological Association
(APA) guidelines for test development.
This instrument is not used to diagnose alcohol dependency in individuals
but rather to assess the level and impact of alcohol and other drug use on
campus. It is a valuable tool for determining how to target populations for
prevention programming, designing social marketing and media advocacy
campaigns, and assessing the impact of these prevention efforts.
Validity and Reliability:
Considerable evidence supports the validity of the Core Survey. To
establish content validity, existing instruments and literature were
reviewed to ensure that important aspects and consequences of alcohol and
other drug use were adequately covered. A panel of experts then reviewed
the items to assess whether they sampled the domain of interest. The level
of agreement for item Inclusion among the experts was very high (interrater
reliability was .90).
Test-retest reliability was estimated using Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficients. For items on AOD use and consequences of use,
test-retest reliability was high, with the majority of item correlations
falling above .80. Items on campus AOD norms showed moderate test-retest
reliability, with most correlations falling between .30 and .80.
Item-to-total correlations were calculated to assess the internal
consistency of the survey. Correlations for the majority of items on AOD
use, consequences, and campus norms fell between .30 and .70, as
recommended by Henryssen.
Comments:
The Core Alcohol and Drug Survey is easy to administer and has substantial
8
2/18/99 11:38 AM
7 of 18
http://www.edc.org/hec/pubs/selecting-right-tool.txt
validity and reliability data to support its use with postsecondary
populations. Optical scan scoring of the survey is done at the Core
Institute, and a report of results is provided to the institution
administering the survey, generally within a week. In addition, the Core
Institute can provide a computer disk with the institution's survey data in
a format that will allow further data analysis.
Another benefit of using the Core Survey is that institutions can compare
results with those of similar institutions from across the country that
have also used the instrument. Compiled results from other colleges and
universities are published in Core Institute monographs every two years and
are available on the Core Institute's Website.
Alcohol and Other Drug Surveys
Campus Survey of Alcohol and Other Drug Norms*
Key Contact:
Core Institute
Student Health Programs
Kesnar Hall MC 6802
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901
[phone]
Phone:
Website: http://www.siu.edu/-coreinst/
Applications and Outcomes:
The Campus Survey of Alcohol and Other Drug Norms was developed in 1997 to
assess respondents' AOD use and their perceptions of campus norms and
substance use by other students.
The survey was developed in response to the almost universal finding that
students overestimate ADD use by their peers. This misperception is of
concern to the extent that students then try to emulate the perceived norm.
The first set of questions asks how frequently the respondent believes
students at their institution use alcohol and marijuana and other illicit
drugs. The second set of questions asks students to estimate the percentage
of students who do not drink alcohol and of those who binge drink. Students
are asked to report their perceptions of how much students typically
consume and of places where alcohol is consumed. There is also a section
that elicits respondent attitudes regarding other aspects of drinking and
drug use. Finally, respondents are asked about their perceptions of campus
policy and policy enforcement.
Informants:
Postsecondary student population
Format and Administration:
The self-report Campus Survey of Alcohol and Other Drug Norms consists of
17 behavioral, perceptual, and attitudinal questions and nine demographic
questions. Items range from 2 to 10 response options. Respondents average
12 minutes to complete the survey. The campus survey can be combined with
the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey or the Faculty and Staff Environmental
Alcohol and Other Drug Survey to elicit a broad view of AOD problems on the
campus. The Core Institute is available to optically scan questionnaires
and analyze survey results for individual colleges and universities.
Technical Assistance:
Technical assistance for those administering the Campus Survey of Alcohol
and Other Drug Norms is available from the Core Institute through a
15-minute video ($25) that describes how to conduct the survey; through the
Core Institute's Website
(http://www.siu.edu/departments/coreinst/public_html/index.html); or via
9
2/18/99 11:38 AM
8 of 18
http://www.edc.org/hec/pubs/selecting-right-tool.txt
telephone.
Costs:
The Campus Survey of Alcohol and Other Drug Norms is distributed from and
analyzed by the Core Institute. The costs for obtaining the survey and
having the results compiled and analyzed are as follows:
Purchase of each copy: $ 0.27
Scanning of each returned survey: $ 0.17
Executive Summary: $25.00
Cross-Tab Analysis: $30.00
Disk with Raw Data: $13.00
Use in Evaluation:
While the Campus Survey of Alcohol and Other Drug Norms was not introduced
on college campuses until 1997, various items on the survey have been used
extensively in research and to develop social marketing programs for
correcting campus misperceptions regarding AOD use and changing campus
norms. The items were based on theory in AOD prevention research.
Validity and Reliability:
Content validity was assessed based on the level of agreement among the
experts for item content. There was unanimous agreement among the experts
on the choice of items. Many of the items have been evaluated for use in
other instruments.
Comments:
The campus survey has a strong basis in theory, and many of its items have
been tested in earlier research studies. In addition, results were found to
be stable over a four-week test-retest period. The survey's design enhances
ease of administration, scoring, and interpretation of the results.
Environmental Assessment
Faculty and Staff Environmental Alcohol and Other Drug Survey
Key Contact:
Core Institute
Student Health Programs
Kesnar Hall MC 6802
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901
[phone]
Phone:
Website: http://www.siu.edu/-coreinst/
Application and Outcomes:
The Faculty and Staff Environmental Alcohol and Other Drug Survey,
developed in 1993, consists of five subscales developed to assess faculty
and staff perceptions of AOD problems on campus, awareness of policy and
policy enforcement, support for programming efforts to combat AOD problems,
awareness of university assessment efforts, and faculty and staff's
perceived ability to identify students who are experiencing a problem and
refer them for help. The basis for this instrument was the assumption that
faculty and staff attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about the extent of
alcohol and other drug problems are a major influence on the campus
environment.
Informants:
Postsecondary faculty and staff
Format and Administration:
The Faculty and Staff Environmental Alcohol and Other Drug Survey consists
of 35 items in a forced-choice format, plus seven demographic questions.
10
2/18/99 11:38 AM
9 of 18